"Torture Doesn't Work"

[San Lumen]

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

That does not make it right in any way. Torture is wrong and should never condoned or allowed under any circumstance and anyone who tortures a suspect or prisoner should be prosecuted.

[Infected Mushroom]

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

The CIA didn't, for some of their prisoners. They're not worth their salt?

Not in my judgement

[Infected Mushroom]

it can give rise to unverifiable information, but only in the sense that any other method can give rise to unverifiable information

the fact that it can be used to get verifiable information shows that it can work from time to time, that the threshold has been met

If the information can be verified, then what the hell is the point in the torture in the first place? If the information can be verified, then the torturer clearly already has access to all the information they need...

OK. Second round of the game. The torturer wants to know the phone number of my contact. I give them a phone number. The torturer or one of his cronies calls the number. It is a real phone number, someone answers it! The torturer and his cronies find the poor sod that answered the phone and bring him in for some torturings too. How will they verify that he is my contact?

Sorry OP, but your window of truth is shrinking with every passing minute...

The answer to your first question is obvious. The details/things can only practically be verified after you extract some parameters from the person tortured. For example, think of narrowing down a list of 10,000 suspects to five when you have a deadline or a list of infinite locations to two. This comes up in law enforcement all the time.

You’re using a logical fallacy, it’s not a case of... “hey I can verify 100 percent of all possibilities practically without interrogation” or “I have nothing and I need 100 percent from the person.” And evidence gets verified all the time in investigation after it’s been extracted, happens all the time. This “if I have to verify it then I never needed to narrow down possibilities or even find the evidence to begin with” is bad logic.

The answer to your second question is that you would use standard law enforcement questioning and deduction to figure out if they are the contact or not. Hopefully, you tortured the first person because it was a relatively fast way to get to the second person and by narrowing down an otherwise unworkably large (potentially infinite) suspect list.

[San Lumen]

If the information can be verified, then what the hell is the point in the torture in the first place? If the information can be verified, then the torturer clearly already has access to all the information they need...

OK. Second round of the game. The torturer wants to know the phone number of my contact. I give them a phone number. The torturer or one of his cronies calls the number. It is a real phone number, someone answers it! The torturer and his cronies find the poor sod that answered the phone and bring him in for some torturings too. How will they verify that he is my contact?

Sorry OP, but your window of truth is shrinking with every passing minute...

The answer to your first question is obvious. The details/things can only practically be verified after you extract some parameters from the person tortured. For example, think of narrowing down a list of 10,000 suspects to five when you have a deadline or a list of infinite locations to two. This comes up in law enforcement all the time.

You’re using a logical fallacy, it’s not a case of... “hey I can verify 100 percent of all possibilities practically without interrogation” or “I have nothing and I need 100 percent from the person.” And evidence gets verified all the time in investigation after it’s been extracted, happens all the time. This “if I have to verify it then I never needed to narrow down possibilities or even find the evidence to begin with” is bad logic.

The answer to your second question is that you would use standard law enforcement questioning and deduction to figure out if they are the contact or not. Hopefully, you tortured the first person because it was a relatively fast way to get to the second person and by narrowing down an otherwise unworkably large (potentially infinite) suspect list.

Why do you think torture is ok?

[Dogmeat]

The answer to your first question is obvious. The details/things can only practically be verified after you extract some parameters from the person tortured. For example, think of narrowing down a list of 10,000 suspects to five when you have a deadline or a list of infinite locations to two. This comes up in law enforcement all the time.

You’re using a logical fallacy, it’s not a case of... “hey I can verify 100 percent of all possibilities practically without interrogation” or “I have nothing and I need 100 percent from the person.” And evidence gets verified all the time in investigation after it’s been extracted, happens all the time. This “if I have to verify it then I never needed to narrow down possibilities or even find the evidence to begin with” is bad logic.

The answer to your second question is that you would use standard law enforcement questioning and deduction to figure out if they are the contact or not. Hopefully, you tortured the first person because it was a relatively fast way to get to the second person and by narrowing down an otherwise unworkably large (potentially infinite) suspect list.

Why do you think torture is ok?

Because otherwise he couldn't justify his threads on NSG.

[Torrocca]

As the title here implies, torture indeed does not work.

[Jebslund]

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

With modern technology, it is very much *not* possible. The body has limits, and no amount of modern medicine will eliminate them. Eventually, you run out of bones safe to break, areas safe to cut, organs safe to remove, etc. Add to that the fact that torture takes manpower, has a limited pool of those willing to do it, and that the resources (particularly the money) of the torturers are not infinite, and it becomes increasingly undesirable to the ones authorising the torture to continue torture on a useless subject indefinitely. It's a waste of resources to torture someone when no good can or will come of it, and the only people who would keep it up past the usefulness of the subject's information weren't doing it to get the information in the first place.

[Considavotix]

Research shows, that torture doesn't work.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As the title here implies, torture indeed does not work.

I often wonder if OP has made a bet with someone about getting behind the most reprehensible ideas and how that feels, because otherwise, I can't understand why he's constantly making threads with such terrible premises. Torture? Really? Prolong suffering with modern tech? This despite the studies that have stated that torture doesn't work? It's, well, wow.

[The Johtian Republic]

Research shows, that torture doesn't work.

Torture works, but it isn't humane.

[San Lumen]

Research shows, that torture doesn't work.

Torture works, but it isn't humane.

Studies disagree

[The Johtian Republic]

Torture works, but it isn't humane.

Studies disagree

What are these studies?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Studies disagree

What are these studies?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... oesnt-work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198758/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -doing-it/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uo-t-work/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/scie ... 56854.html

Even interrogators admit that no, torture doesn't work.

[The Johtian Republic]

What are these studies?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... oesnt-work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198758/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -doing-it/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uo-t-work/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/scie ... 56854.html

I never suggested that torture works as a tool for confession. I suggested that torture works to break victims.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... oesnt-work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198758/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -doing-it/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uo-t-work/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/scie ... 56854.html

I never suggested that torture works as a tool for confession. I suggested that torture works to break victims.

It doesn't. Studies have also found that a person can admit to anything, even when this 'anything' is not true, just to make the pain stop. So you ''break'' someone and that person has no real information to give, and you call that effective?

[The Johtian Republic]

I never suggested that torture works as a tool for confession. I suggested that torture works to break victims.

It doesn't. Studies have also found that a person can admit to anything, even when this 'anything' is not true, just to make the pain stop. So you ''break'' someone and that person has no real information to give, and you call that effective?

I just said it doesn't work for confession. The definition of break I'm using is break in the form of S&M, brainwashing, Stockholm Syndrome, forced ideological radicality, used by groups such as the Islamic State. I said myself that torture doesn't work as a tool for confession.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It doesn't. Studies have also found that a person can admit to anything, even when this 'anything' is not true, just to make the pain stop. So you ''break'' someone and that person has no real information to give, and you call that effective?

I just said it doesn't work for confession. The definition of break I'm using is break in the form of S&M, brainwashing, Stockholm Syndrome, forced ideological radicality. I said myself that torture doesn't work as a tool for confession.

Many of the people who practice S&M do so willingly, so there's no real torture involved. As for the others, these are all behaviors that can be reversed.

[Torrocca]

As the title here implies, torture indeed does not work.

I often wonder if OP has made a bet with someone about getting behind the most reprehensible ideas and how that feels, because otherwise, I can't understand why he's constantly making threads with such terrible premises. Torture? Really? Prolong suffering with modern tech? This despite the studies that have stated that torture doesn't work? It's, well, wow.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure on that. There're definitely plenty of like-minded people like IM out there that believe in this kinda crazy stuff.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I often wonder if OP has made a bet with someone about getting behind the most reprehensible ideas and how that feels, because otherwise, I can't understand why he's constantly making threads with such terrible premises. Torture? Really? Prolong suffering with modern tech? This despite the studies that have stated that torture doesn't work? It's, well, wow.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure on that. There're definitely plenty of like-minded people like IM out there that believe in this kinda crazy stuff.

What would Buenaventura Durruti say about this?

[Torrocca]

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure on that. There're definitely plenty of like-minded people like IM out there that believe in this kinda crazy stuff.

What would Buenaventura Durruti say about this?

All things considered, he'd probably strongly disagree with it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What would Buenaventura Durruti say about this?

All things considered, he'd probably strongly disagree with it.

Mah good man, Durruti.

[The Johtian Republic]

I just said it doesn't work for confession. The definition of break I'm using is break in the form of S&M, brainwashing, Stockholm Syndrome, forced ideological radicality. I said myself that torture doesn't work as a tool for confession.

Many of the people who practice S&M do so willingly, so there's no real torture involved. As for the others, these are all behaviors that can be reversed.

With great struggle, sometimes it being impossible.
And what of the people who practice S&M unwillingly, such as in the case of human trafficking or abduction?

[Senkaku]

It works for inflicting pain, it doesn't work for extracting reliable and accurate information.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Many of the people who practice S&M do so willingly, so there's no real torture involved. As for the others, these are all behaviors that can be reversed.

With great struggle, sometimes it being impossible.
And what of the people who practice S&M unwillingly, such as in the case of human trafficking or abduction?

Those people can also be helped with psychotherapy. The damage can be eased.

[The Johtian Republic]

With great struggle, sometimes it being impossible.
And what of the people who practice S&M unwillingly, such as in the case of human trafficking or abduction?

Those people can also be helped with psychotherapy. The damage can be eased.

But not fully erased. PTSD is impossible to reverse.

In any case where torture has caused severe scarring damage, both mentally and physically, the torturer always wins.